Posted on 08/24/2006 8:01:43 PM PDT by Perdogg
DURHAM, N.C. — On March 21, a week after an African-American woman charged that she had been raped by three white Duke University lacrosse players, the police sergeant supervising the investigation met with the sexual-assault nurse who had examined the woman in the emergency room. The sergeant, Mark D. Gottlieb, reviewed the medical report, which did not say much: some swelling, no visible bruises.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Gretta's show summary:
1. The tease Ask is the tide turning for Nifong.
2. The guest host summarizes the article.
3. Asks does the police report strengthen the states case.
4. Hammer asked about the description of the players. Hammer of course takes the report and smirks about it being wait. Does say IF this report was true. Claims Nifong still in the fight.
5. Asks Ted about injuries and how relevant it is. Ted claims it will be very relevant and calls the defense stupid. Claims Nifong out flanked them. Admits conflict between Gottlieb and other detective. [Himan]
6. Asks Bernie about Nifongs statements. But says he saw no smoking gun in the article.
7. Asks can you get by the photo lineup. Ted claims their will be a trial. Hammer says maybe Nifong is a scumbag or maybe a good DA who really believes Mangum.
The substitute host was pathetic. I am guessing she is just a feminazi.
She wasn't good, but with Ted and Hammer on the panel she didn't have much to work with...............
Ted called the defense lawyers stupid, saying they'd been outflnked by Nifong. Come on. Now Ted says this will definitely go to trial but on a previous show I remember him saying it would NEVER get to trial. I think he says whatever pops into his head at any given moment.
The show sucks without Greta because she sees through the BS and challenges people.
I always liked Ted until this case. He has had after his early informatin from the DPD to toe the racial line and it has not served him well.
No other reporter has mentioned them, so is the NYT the first to see them?
If it is 10% that one rapist did not leave DNA, then for three it has to be .1% or 1 in 1000!!
The 10% number seems really high if no condom was used and she was assaulted orally.
Actually it is
.1 x .1 x .1 = .001
.001 is .1% or 1 in 1000
oops, same thing.
I was thinking probabilities.
Date: Thursday, July 13, 2006
By: Leonard Greene, Special to BlackAmericaWeb.com
It's been one stop after another for freed inmate Alan Newton, who was released from prison last week after 22 years in jail for a crime he did not commit.
After a week of parties, picnics and public appearances, Newton, a former bank teller from the Bronx, is adjusting to life on the outside after DNA testing cleared him in the vicious rape and beating of a Bronx woman whose shaky identification sent him away for nearly half his life.
DNA from Newton that was compared to a sperm sample recovered as evidence after the rape showed conclusively that Newton had nothing to do with the brutal attack.
--http://www.blackamericaweb.com/site.aspx/bawnews/newton713
So why was this guy freed when the NYT tells us:
"Outside experts say it is possible for a rapist to leave no DNA evidence."
In any case, the number makes the "experts'"assertion totally ridiculous. Even if there was a 20% chance of NO DNA and an actual rape, the probability is less than 1% that a person was raped by 3 people and there was no DNA. On the other hand if there was no rape there is a 100% chance that there would be no DNA of the APs!!
I don't know. Cash Michael said he saw 1800+ pages of discovery. This will be an interestng issue to follow in the next several days.
That got me thinking what did the NYT say about Alan Newton? Liberals always cry about people innocent in prison and DNA clearing them. But of course here, DNA doesn't mean jack.
Amazing isn't it? She claims she was assaulted in three orifices by men not wearing any protection and no DNA is left.
http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2006/08/more-bad-times.html
On the DNA front, the Times duo does everything it can to help out Nifong. The authors toss in this odd sentence:
"Outside experts say it is possible for a rapist to leave no DNA evidence."
Who are the "outside experts" who contend it is possible for three men that the accuser said didn't use condoms and who violently raped her "to leave no DNA evidence"? Wilson and Glater don't tell us: I guess we're just supposed to trust their word.
Cash is back at abc11 tonight
educating locals. His latest
wire story is out. Talks about
The Committee for the first time.
Yes, this town is a mess. At this
point any Durham jury would be
more trustworthy than the folks
running the place.
On Direct, Nifong asks Himan - could you have been wrong about your descriptions? Himan can say Yes. Every witness can say they are unsure on the stand - every one can. There is room between Himan saying he purposefully wrote the wrong description and that he now feels unsure about his notes.
He can say that, looking back, I may have been recording her description of the second man as the first. In other words, Himan may say both of the following descriptions of his should've been combined to describe SUSPECT # 2 (Matt)
Adam: "white male, short, red cheeks fluffy hair chubby face, brn"
Matt: "Heavy set short haircut 260-270"
When questioned on Direct by Nifong - Himan and Gottlieb both say that Gottlieb was the primary recorder and Himan was just making notes out of habit. Her kids were pushing toys into Himan's face as the woman talked, and he didn't want to be impolite to the kids?
IMO, there are NO hard and fast rules. Things work differently in Durham, and IF the Jury accepts it - it works. You and I might think the Defense attorney ripped Gottlieb to shreds, but if the people on the jury see Nifong and Gottlieb, people in positions of authority, and believe them, especially in Himan goes along, then it doesn't matter.
We have to understand Durham.
1) Gottlieb is the Head of Investigations
2) Gottlieb is/was an officer/rep in the Police Union
3) Gottlieb is Himan's boss.
It would be nice and heartening, in fact, if Himan were to take a stand. But, he'll need another job most likely.
Gottlieb will still be there as his boss and Nifong is the Power Broker in the area.
So, if Himan lies, he gets criticized by Fox and some blogs - for a week (or less) and then he goes back to work.
If Himan takes a stand - and stands firm and resolute - the job environment will be unbearable to return to.
You may be right, I may be right - time will tell.
However, I can't help but think we're all going to get old waiting for someone to do the right thing in this case - and for the Main Stream Media to take an interest and call this prosecution what it is.
Except for some rebels, I doubt, at this point, if they'll ever call out Nifong and the DPD for their actions. How long have we operated under the impression that when the MSM sees the light, things are going to change?
I read the article earlier.
Well written, fair and balanced, IMHO.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.